The online eKYC involves just one simple form, absolutely no paperwork or physical appearance, according to a release from Quantum AMC

Quantum Mutual Fund announced the launch of eKYC (electronic Know Your Customer), where it will allow first time investors to fill up a simple form and complete their KYC formalities, in a totally paperless manner, without the need of physical submission of any form / document proofs or physical appearance, according to a release from Quantum AMC.

On the launch of the eKYC facility, the CEO of Quantum AMC Jimmy Patel said, “We are proud to offer another completely online facility – eKYC – which will make investing simpler and faster for investors. We have focused on ensuring that first step of investments is very convenient and a completely paperless experience for new investors.”

The investor’s details will be verified by Quantum through independent sources. The last leg of the transaction – IPV or ‘In Person Verification’ will also be done from the comfort of the investors’ home/office, through a camera – but during Quantum office hours only.

Once the eIPV is done successfully, KYC formalities are over and the KRA (KYC Registration Agency) will process the documents.

The new eKYC facility is available for first time investors on their website.

User

Alert me when a new comment is posted

COMMENTS

Sunil Rebello

1 year ago

Dear Sir / Madam,
Is it a rule that for every Bank Ac, MF Ac, Demat Ac the KYC norms required to be updated every 3 to 5 years.
WHAT IS THE GOVERNMENT RULE.
THANKS N REGARDS
sunil

Francis Xavier

As usual, great job by Quantum. They are truly DIRECT to investor and clearing the bottleneck in mutual fund investing well.
So it is completely paperless for new investor.

M Muralidharan

1 year ago

Good start. Change of bank details with MF must also be simplified. Banks benefit by fund movement via MF transactions. By just doing online verification of details submitted, copies of check etc can be eliminated...

This is excellent. The fat cats like HDFC and ICICI lie back and have become so arrogant that they do not want customers now.

Construction of Mumbai Police headquarter building has been delayed by 32 months for which the contractor was fined Rs16.68 lakh, reveals a reply received under RTI

The Maharashtra State Police Housing and Welfare Corp (MSPHWC) has fined a contractor for delay in construction work for its head quarter building and recovered Rs16.68 lakh, reveals a reply received under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

According to information received under RTI by activist Anil Galgali, the project has been delayed by 32 months and contractor Choudhary and Choudhary has been fined Rs16.68 lakh for the delay.

Galgali had filed a query with the Maharashtra State Police Housing and Welfare Corp seeking information about the new building for head quarter.

In response, Public Information Officer (PIO) and Audit officer SM Devkar informed Galgali that, the work order for the proposed project was issued to the contractor Choudhary and Choudhary on 25 August 2011 for a cost of Rs32 crore and the period for completion of the project was envisaged for 18 months.

The project was supposed to be completed by 24 February 2013 was given an extension upto 31 May 2014. The cost escalation in the project was Rs22.55 crore of which Rs13.88 crore was for building works and other activities, Rs5.75 crore was for interiors and furnishings, Rs23 lakh for kitchen and canteen, and Rs2.69 crore for air conditioning of the building.

Hafeez Contractor was appointed as the Architect for the project and was paid a fee of Rs36.48 lakh, the information reveals.

Galgali was further informed that building would be for ground plus six floors and the new building would accommodate 32 officers and 950 staff.

User

The apex court also holds unconstitutional and void the 99th Constitutional Amendment to bring in NJAC for appointing judges

The Supreme Court, while maintaining that the collegium system for selecting judges will continue, has rejected the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), which was aimed to give the government more say in appointing judges.

The National Judicial Appointment Commission Act, 2014, was challenged in a batch of petitions including by the Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Association.

Besides contending that the NJAC route for the selection and appointment of judges infringed on the independence of judiciary, the petitioners challenging the NJAC Act, 2014, said it could not have been passed in August 2014 as there was no supporting provision in the constitution. It came into effect only after 31st December assent to the constitutional amendment by President Pranab Mukherjee.

On the other hand, the government contested the maintainability of the petitions, saying that these were premature and academic as statutory provision to bring in the NJAC has not been notified and operationalised.

The government had contended that unless the NJAC was operationalised and someone's rights were affected, there was no cause of action to challenge their validity.

While the Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Association, NGO Change India, Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), Bar Association of India and others had moved the court challenging the appointment of judges to higher judiciary through NJAC route, the Supreme Court Bar Association had come out in the favour of the replacing the collegium system of judges' selection by the NJAC.

Earlier, in April, an apex court bench of Justice Anil R Dave, Justice J Chelameswar and Justice Madan B Lokur had referred to the constitution bench the challenge to the validity of the constitution amendment and enabling law to replace the collegium system for the appointment of judges to higher judiciary.

The SC will hold further hearing on the issue on 3rd November for improving the collegium system of appointment of judges.

User

Alert me when a new comment is posted

COMMENTS

Bapoo Malcolm

1 year ago

You cannot improve by improvising. One cannot better by battering, except batter itself. Interference does not cure, it complicates.

The NJAC would mean Law of the government, by the government,for the government. As it is, there is hardly any demarkation between the executive and the legislature, one an appendage of the other.

Police and politicians is a dastardly nexus. Throw in the judiciary and one can say good-bye to liberty as we know it. With so many in the legislatures with criminal charge sheets, can another hand in the pot not mess things further?

A better way would have been a track 2 initiative to iron out the kinks. Steam rolling flattens the pitch completely.